Paper detail

Additional Keplerian Signals in the HARPS data for Gliese 667C from a Bayesian Re-analysis

A re-analysis of Gliese 667C HARPS precision radial velocity data was carried out with a Bayesian multi-planet Kepler periodogram (from 0 to 7 planets) based on a fusion Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm. The most probable number of signals detected is 6 with a Bayesian false alarm probability of 0.012. The residuals are shown to be consistent with white noise. The 6 signals detected include two previously reported with periods of 7.198 (b) and 28.14 (c) days, plus additional periods of 30.82 (d), 38.82 (e), 53.22, and 91.3 (f) days. The 53 day signal is probably the second harmonic of the stellar rotation period and is likely the result of surface activity. The existence of the additonal Keplerian signals suggest the possibilty of further planets, two of which (d and e) could join Gl 667Cc in the central region of the habitable zone. N-body simulations are required to determine which of these signals are consistent with a stable planetary system. $M \sin i$ values corresponding to signals b, c, d, e, and f are $\sim$ 5.4, 4.8, 3.1, 2.4, and 5.4 M$_{\earth}$, respectively.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.